Minor Scuffles Do Not Amount To Cruelty | Madras High Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown | Matrimonial Life And Career Are Like Two Eyes Of A Human Being
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice R. Sakthivel allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, thereby dissolving a marriage solemnized in July 2014. The court held that though cruelty as a legal ground had not been proved, the prolonged separation of nearly nine years and irreconcilable differences between the parties constituted sufficient reason to grant a divorce. Accordingly, the court set aside the earlier order of the Family Court and declared the marriage dissolved.
The appeal arose out of a petition initially filed before the Family Court in Pondicherry and later transferred to the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. The marriage in question was solemnized on 2 July 2014 according to Hindu rites and was later registered. The petitioner (husband) alleged that the respondent (wife) engaged in conduct amounting to cruelty during their brief cohabitation.
According to the petitioner, the respondent displayed scornful, abusive, and indifferent behavior, lacked interest in the marriage beyond his financial status, and was sarcastic and quarrelsome. He stated that she accepted a job in January 2015 without informing him, initiated quarrels, removed her mangal sutra, and caused him mental distress. He further alleged that she refused to stay with his parents, and after he moved to Canada for work, she did not join him and left for the USA for higher studies without informing him.
In contrast, the respondent admitted the marriage but denied all allegations of cruelty. She claimed to have treated the petitioner with love, especially during his illness in early 2015, and asserted that she joined her job with his consent and performed her domestic responsibilities. She contended that the petitioner physically assaulted her in March 2015 and later expressed regret in an email. She also stated that her decision to pursue higher studies in the USA was communicated to the petitioner’s family, and she had kept in touch with him via Skype.
Before the Family Court, the petitioner was examined as PW-1, and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-10. The respondent was examined as RW-1, with Exhibits R-1 to R-25 submitted in her support. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, concluding that the petitioner had failed to prove cruelty and that the issues between the couple did not merit dissolution of the marriage.
Challenging this dismissal, the petitioner approached the High Court. He argued that the Family Court had erroneously relied on photographs to determine the health of the relationship and failed to recognize key incidents, such as the respondent’s move to the USA and lack of communication, as acts of cruelty. He also submitted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to prolonged separation.
The respondent, through her counsel, reiterated that she had acted in good faith and was still open to reconciliation, provided a humane and peaceful marital environment was assured. She denied deserting the petitioner and claimed to have informed him and his family of her academic plans abroad.
In evaluating the material before it, the High Court recorded, “As far as the physical altercation in March 2015 is concerned, it is admitted that both parties showed some physical aggression.” It further stated, “The incident occurred within a year of their marriage... misunderstandings, difference of opinion and minor spousal conflicts are common and expected.” The bench concluded, “Though there arose some quarrel leading to a physical alteration, both parties condoned and continued to live together thereafter.”
Regarding the issue of the respondent moving to the USA, the court observed, “Even assuming that she failed to inform the petitioner and his family, that alone cannot be termed as cruelty, considering the facts and circumstances of this case.”
The bench also addressed the petitioner’s failure to substantiate other allegations. It recorded, “The petitioner has failed to substantiate the same through proper evidence. On the other hand, the photographs and other evidence... would suggest that the respondent and the petitioner were leading a typical and happy life.”
In reference to an email (Ex-P.6) sent by the petitioner expressing his desire for divorce, the court noted his assertion, “It is absolutely certain and proved beyond doubt that you have deserted me... All these actions... have caused severe mental stress... irrecoverable loss of marital rights.”
In response, the respondent’s email (Ex-R.19) stated, “I am willing to come and stay with you... until you provide a humanitarian environment... I am not at all agreeable for Divorce under any circumstances.”
However, the court also acknowledged, “The Family Court referred the parties to conciliation which did not yield any fruit. Even after conciliation, they were not ready to adjust and were sticking on to their own stands.”
It recorded, “Except for the above, the respondent has not taken any steps towards reunion... and has stood by her decision. Further, the respondent has not filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights till date.”
Examining the prolonged separation, the bench noted, “The petitioner and the respondent have been living separately for about nine years. Further, the steps taken by the Trial Court for conciliation, for the purpose of reunion, ended in vain.”
The Division Bench, upon reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, concluded that there existed no possibility of reunion between the petitioner and the respondent. Although the petitioner had not taken the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court took into account that the parties had been living separately since October 2015 and that the original petition was presented on March 23, 2017, i.e., within two years.
The court further noted that all efforts at conciliation undertaken by the Trial Court had failed. In view of the prolonged separation of about nine years and the lack of any successful reconciliation, the court was of the opinion that the marital relationship had reached a point where no reunion was possible.
Therefore, the court held that it would be appropriate to dissolve the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on July 2, 2014.
In light of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed. The court declared that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on July 2, 2014, stands dissolved. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court ordered that there shall be no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sheila Jayaprakash
For the Respondent: Ms. Geetha Ramaseshan
Case Title: XXX vs YYY
Case Number: CMA No. 756 of 2021
Bench: Justice J. Nisha Banu, Justice R. Sakthivel
[Read/Download order]
